I think it’s fair to say that the three most controversial letters in the English language today are D, E, and I. To some, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are a long-overdue recognition of how American institutions systematically disadvantage people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community. To others, they are a grand Marxist conspiracy hell-bent on granting historically oppressed classes special privileges. The word has been used as a political litmus test for so long, however, that I fear we’ve stopped considering that it might be neither.
I’ll make no secret of what I think of the Trump administration’s recent actions against DEI initiatives. For all the talk of equality and meritocracy, one doesn’t need to look much further than President Donald Trump’s firing of Charles Q. Brown as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to understand their true purpose. Why was Brown, a four-star general and 40-year United States Air Force veteran, fired? It’s simple: U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth believes he won his position by “playing the race card.” Keep in mind, the former is a decorated career commander, and the latter is a former TV host and current drunkard who believes creatine is a substitute for experience.
Instead of fostering a meritocracy, the Trump administration is set on creating the exact identity-based fast tracks it claims to be destroying, just for white Christian men instead. The administration’s actions are driven by the idea that only people like Hegseth deserve their positions, and no matter how hard everyone else works, how innovative we are, or how much we accomplish, our achievements are just the result of a grand conspiracy. Which, to put it frankly, is absurd. The rotating cast of “America’s Most Talentless” who have seized control of our government use the phrase “DEI” like Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro uses “fascist” or South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol uses “anti-state forces” — as a hammer against anyone they don’t like.
Yet, I find it difficult to defend DEI. Despite their supposed prominence in our public and private institutions, DEI initiatives have done shockingly little to advance diversity, equity, or inclusion — women and people of color are just as underrepresented across S&P 500 companies in 2025 as they were in 2020. It is also unclear what DEI actually calls upon its adherents to do. Addressing systemic inequities is all well and good on paper, but what does that mean in practice? Quotas for disadvantaged communities? Networking and social events? A social media campaign? For many institutions, simply changing their Instagram page and shoving a person of color out in front of investors and donors seems to suffice.
Even when its implementation is more muscular, however, DEI is based on a fundamentally flawed philosophy: the cult of the “Talented Tenth.” W.E.B. Du Bois popularized the term in 1903 to describe the idea that disadvantaged communities can be uplifted by creating a small elite from among their ranks who would then “save” everyone else. The truth, however, is that such elites ultimately have little impact on structural inequities and feel little compulsion to give back once they have achieved power and status. Black and Latino representation in the professional and managerial classes has risen more than 50% since 2000, yet we see the exact opposite trend in racial wage gaps, income growth, and wealth.
Looking beyond the office, our DEI reckoning has given creatives of color a greater role: playing slavers. Take “Bridgerton” and “Hamilton” as examples. In the former, a Black Queen Charlotte romances a “DEI-ified” King George III who extols racial progress despite his real-world counterpart enslaving over 1.5 million people. In the latter, former President Thomas Jefferson — a plantation owner who enslaved his own children — becomes a suave Black man. The heroes are still slave owners, but now they rap.
Out on the streets, an equal-opportunity police squad murdered George Floyd — four officers: two white, one Black, one Asian. Can the races of the United States unite to torture a man to death because he tried to buy groceries? Apparently so.
The foundational thesis of DEI is that by coloring in America’s institutions like a paint-by-numbers drawing, they will instantly be transformed for the better. Someday, it whispers, skinny kids with funny names from across America will be able to bomb Pakistani children too.
As much as I support its stated goals, I can’t bring myself to miss DEI. Maybe in its absence we can fight for true — lowercase — diversity, equity, and inclusion. Children of color in this country disproportionately grow up in lead-lined homes, drink poisoned water, and attend schools that fail them to such an extent that some struggle to multiply numbers by eighth grade. Our institutionally discriminatory medical system turns minor illnesses into death sentences, systematically placing millions in a “Saw” trap they are lucky to leave without losing a vital organ, going bankrupt, or becoming a drug addict.
These challenges are the real barriers between us and a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive America. Uppercase DEI, endlessly monetized in Zoom allyship sessions and diversity reviews helmed by overpaid consulting firms, never took them on — and it never intended to. Good riddance.
JASON ZHAO is a Wharton junior studying finance and computer science from Seattle. His email address is jaszhao@wharton.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
